Truth Discussion Time

So, here is a podcast that popped up in the Joe Rogan or any good Podcast Thread:

Many found it entertaining, myself included, but it got me thinking about something I have been thinking about. We need more truth in the world. More facts. More transparency. That is what the internet is great for. I thought it might be fun to discuss some things on here. This is what I wrote in the other thread:

From that podcast I do not know if we can say if he believes the Bible is fact. He is definitely pro-Christianity. I gathered he is also very much pro-fame and money. He is definitely a very unique individual, clever, speaks well. A right wing purple cow for sure. Basically, it would baffle me that someone that sharp would actually believe the Bible mythology as factual but I have been wrong and baffled before.

Is there any science on developing babies? If the baby does not have a heart or a brain is it really a human? Without any factual science to the contrary it does seem like murder. I have murdered mice because they were fucking around eating my food. I do not know if that is a good reason. I have murdered fish because it is fun catching them and they are a good food. I am going to back that decision 100% as long as it is responsible fishing. What's the problem with murdering a blob of cells so it does not completely fuck up my life?

I definitely agree that it is fucked up if women are bragging about their abortions. Help someone who is thinking about it or has gong through it sure but otherwise yikes.

Damn, I am thankful I have not been through that myself (yet...) My suggestion to others so far has been, "I am here for you. I am pro-choice but you have to make the choice."

Transgender as a mental health issue was really interesting to me. I never thought about that. Likely much better to work with a therapist. That is a very radical change and 40% unhappy about it is not good. From my experience with LGBT many would be appalled at transgender as a mental health issue but that is something where I am like hmm, there could be something there. I am sure at one point bigots thought being gay was a mental illness and Mike Pence still to this day strongly believes in gay conversion. Oh well.

Immigration. I do not know where I stand on this topic. I just don't. I have thought about going way left where we let everyone in and educate and integrate and accept but that seems crazy. I have thought about going way right and not letting anyone in and just deporting everyone but that is crazy too. I have never heard an immigration policy that makes sense or that I was like "yeah, that seems decent." Maybe some of the euros who have been dealing with it a lot can chime in?

Rikd watch The Danish Girl . It won some awards and is about a transgender person.

You are from USA, how can you deport everyone without deporting yourself in the process ? You've got to draw the line somewhere and someone will be upset. Even theoretically. If there were no borders people would migrate freely so it is what they would naturally do.

On July 21 2016 06:24 cariadon wrote:
Rikd watch The Danish Girl . It won some awards and is about a transgender person.

You are from USA, how can you deport everyone without deporting yourself in the process ? You've got to draw the line somewhere and someone will be upset. Even theoretically. If there were no borders people would migrate freely so it is what they would naturally do.

Its actually quite a bad example because the guy in the movie clearly is mentally ill.

Milo is outrageous on purpose and says shits he doesnt mean like theres no such thing as transphobia, I had a transgender friend who was actually kidnapped tortured, killed and burned so yeah pretty sure transphobia is real, also you cannot categorize transgender people as mentally ill and not do the same for gay people, either both are or none and frankly it all depends on how you want to define mental illness which is a subjective thing.

Also as Rogan says obviously people should do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies, if that 40% regret statistic is true then its a shame, but who cares, if people regret tattoos now we wont allow people to get them? its your body, you own it, you can do whatever you want with it.

I agree with Milo on the pro-life debate likely though for different reasons. One of the stronger pro-choice arguments comes from Judith Jarvis (http://faculty.cbu.ca/sstewart/thomson.pdf). Jarvis in the paper agrees that after a certain point in the development of the fetus you are contractually obligated to the fetus and it's right to life. I disagree with this and believe that you are contractually obligated the moment you have sex. If every time we had unprotected sex it resulted in a pregnancy we wouldn't be taking the act so lightly knowing that it will bring about a child. In reality though this is not the case and the situation is more like a bet. I am betting that if I sleep with you, it will not result in a child and sometimes you lose this bet, most of the time you win. It true regardless of whether or not you use protection since protection is never 100% guaranteed. Obviously in the case of a woman that has been raped it is understandable since she did not give her consent and therefore is not contractually obligated.

I really liked the part where he talks about how being born gay is bullshit and was just invented. I am not a homophobe I just think people should accept life choices like being gay rather then say "oh well there is nothing I can do I was born this way". I have thought the same as well about Transgender people and that they are delusional just never really voiced me opinion publicly before. I think its wrong what society is doing now with parents encouraging young children to be transgender. Its actually feeding into the delusions. I think it will be a long time before the general public views it as such but I believe historians from 200 or 300 years from now will look back and say "wtf were these people thinking". Consider if your like some 10 year old kid and you hear about all this Transgender stuff and say okay I wanna be a girl now. Your parents and teachers say yeah sure no problem and encourage you to express yourself however you want, then your 25 and have tits. Even if you realized ugh this was a mistake your stuck with tits and everyone identifying you as woman. You can't come back from that imho. Life choices like should not be encouraged to make by people that aren't old enough to vote or drive.

On abortion I think its pretty obvious that thinking literally a couple of microscopic cells are a baby and killing them is murder is stupid, most women would be a mass murderers counting all the fertilized eggs that are flushed down with menstruation.

Life is about consciousness and setting a bar of how conscious is difficult, so mostly a line is drawn when the woman is given a reasonable time to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, if someone brags or not about abortions (Ive never in my life heard anyone bragging about one) is irrelevant, its just a pathetic tactic Milo uses to convey outrage.

Immigration is also pretty clear, you cannot open borders, do you have an idea what would happen if the US would simply open the south border no questions asked? they would probably have 30 million Mexicans more in the next few months, you have to control your borders and allow the number of people who fit certain profile that would overall help or not negatively impact the life of your citizens.

On July 21 2016 08:04 FMLuser wrote:
I really liked the part where he talks about how being born gay is bullshit and was just invented. I am not a homophobe I just think people should accept life choices like being gay rather then say "oh well there is nothing I can do I was born this way"

No he didn't say that, he said its a combination of both and that its hard to say, and in reality it doesn't matter if its a gene or an environmental thing as a kid that made you gay, in both scenarios you didn't have a choice, who in their right mind would chose to be gay and be murderer, beaten and all the horrible things gays experienced through history, you are not very smart.

On July 21 2016 08:09 Baalim wrote:
On abortion I think its pretty obvious that thinking literally a couple of microscopic cells are a baby and killing them is murder is stupid, most women would be a mass murderers counting all the fertilized eggs that are flushed down with menstruation.

The a huge difference in that a woman has control over an abortion and has no control over her menstruation.

On July 21 2016 08:09 Baalim wrote:
On abortion I think its pretty obvious that thinking literally a couple of microscopic cells are a baby and killing them is murder is stupid, most women would be a mass murderers counting all the fertilized eggs that are flushed down with menstruation.

The a huge difference in that a woman has control over an abortion and has no control over her menstruation.

Yes sure, they were accidental deaths, but if you think a few cells are an actual human life, a baby, then how would you feel if you accidentally killed a dozen babies? So this proves nobody really thinks 2 cells are a baby or a full human life

On July 21 2016 08:09 Baalim wrote:
On abortion I think its pretty obvious that thinking literally a couple of microscopic cells are a baby and killing them is murder is stupid, most women would be a mass murderers counting all the fertilized eggs that are flushed down with menstruation.

The a huge difference in that a woman has control over an abortion and has no control over her menstruation.

Yes sure, they were accidental deaths, but if you think a few cells are an actual human life, a baby, then how would you feel if you accidentally killed a dozen babies? So this proves nobody really thinks 2 cells are a baby or a full human life

No sure no one thinks 2 cells are a baby, however the cells divide at a rate of 2 every 12 hours after the egg is fertilized up to a certain point. Your never gonna be able to detect that your pregnant within 12 hours of having sex, by the time a woman ends up having an abortion the baby in question is no longer a small cluster of cells

Despite Milo's "internet troll" and "provocateur" image, he does explain well how the only liberals left are the conservatives (moderate ones at least). The left has gone way too far the other end celebrating victory after victory that it needed to be fed more causes (some, way smarter than others) until it got to a point they prioritized being "progressive" more than making actual sense. The way I see it they valued controversy over substance after trouncing the right to the point of silliness that they themselves have become what they have fought against for decades - they have become the tyrants and patriarchy/matriarchy of the modern age. It will suffer the same fate as the Right wing did, as it has already started to "eat itself", Gamergate is a good example of a pushback that is starting to develop and actually beat them, which is why that particular episode had a lot of parts that were so great and insightful

On July 21 2016 08:04 FMLuser wrote:
I disagree with this and believe that you are contractually obligated the moment you have sex. If every time we had unprotected sex it resulted in a pregnancy we wouldn't be taking the act so lightly knowing that it will bring about a child. In reality though this is not the case and the situation is more like a bet. I am betting that if I sleep with you, it will not result in a child and sometimes you lose this bet, most of the time you win. It true regardless of whether or not you use protection since protection is never 100% guaranteed. Obviously in the case of a woman that has been raped it is understandable since she did not give her consent and therefore is not contractually obligated.

There is no intrinsic right to life. It's just a notion in your head. No one is banging on the doors of non-existence to get a piece of pie in the shithole of a world we live in. It's a human invention; we confer a right to life to those we choose, and we arbitrarily decide whether others should live or die on a daily basis based on whatever crimes we believe they have committed (sometimes just being born a certain way is the crime, yes, like being gay, which isn't a choice). The only people who truly believe in the sanctity of life and who live in alignment with this value are deeply religious and end up living like the Jains do. We've probably never met such a person in real life.

If you have a contractual obligation it's with the person you're having sex with, and it's always going to be about your own interests, never the interests of the person you're possibly creating. You can't possibly care about someone who doesn't exist, and you can't talk about being obligated to a child that doesn't exist yet, due to the non-identity problem.

And If you believe it's all about consent, then you also have to acknowledge the consent of the child, or lack thereof. The child you are having will be a separate consciousness from you, not an extension from you, and you cannot assume to know what it will want, and yet you cannot ask for his consent. What gives you or the woman a right to decide to run this biological experiment without the consent of the person who matters the most in this equation-- the person you put at risk? It's Russian roulette with the gun pointed towards someone else, with no fuck given.

I am not a homophobe I just think people should accept life choices like being gay rather then say "oh well there is nothing I can do I was born this way". I have thought the same as well about Transgender people and that they are delusional just never really voiced me opinion publicly before.

Your entire spiel about how we should treat gay and transgender people is offensive to anyone who can think critically. No one chooses to be attracted to the sex they are attracted to, which is all that really matters here. Whether it's mostly nature or mostly nurture that is responsible for how the person is now wired is completely irrelevant. It doesn't become more of a choice when we find out that it's not strictly 100% the outcome of genes, how the fuck isn't this obvious to you? We don't choose our environment either. It comes down to this: if being gay was a choice anyone could make, it would be the easiest choice not to make in places where you actually get killed for it. The same goes for being trans in a world where you'll just suffer immensely more for it. It's biology 101, we're wired to make choices which make us seek pleasure in the most efficient way as to avoid pain as much as possible. If your "choices" result in being constantly mocked, oppressed, abused and ostracized, you can be damn sure it has nothing to do with something you're consciously responsible for creating.

It should be common sense that if you put gay people and straight people in different rooms and show them different pictures of naked people and study their brains, you will find the same thing: there is an automatic reaction to the stimuli, no time spent deliberating about whether what they see is attractive or not. So why are people still arguing that it's a choice? Because they confuse homosexuality with homosexual acts. Homosexuality is not the same thing as the act of engaging in homosexual sex. You can choose to pursue this action or not, but you can't choose not to feel attracted to the same sex as you if you're gay.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)

On July 21 2016 15:20 Loco wrote:
The child you are having will be a separate consciousness from you, not an extension from you, and you cannot assume to know what it will want, and yet you cannot ask for his consent. What gives you or the woman a right to decide to run this biological experiment without the consent of the person who matters the most in this equation-- the person you put at risk? It's Russian roulette with the gun pointed towards someone else, with no fuck given.

There is no intrinsic right to life. It's just a notion in your head. No one is banging on the doors of non-existence to get a piece of pie in the shithole of a world we live in. It's a human invention; we confer a right to life to those we choose, and we arbitrarily decide whether others should live or die on a daily basis based on whatever crimes we believe they have committed (sometimes just being born a certain way is the crime, yes, like being gay, which isn't a choice). The only people who truly believe in the sanctity of life and who live in alignment with this value are deeply religious and end up living like the Jains do. We've probably never met such a person in real life.

Yes the right to life is a human invention so are lot of other things like money, governments, and math. You wouldn't call those things non-existent. You live in Canada so you should know that we don't have the death penalty, and so when someone commits a crime a judge can't arbitrarily decide if they should live or die. So there is an entirely secular judicial body that believes in the right to life not just some Jains. Your making a No true scottsman logical fallacy.

On July 21 2016 18:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the right to human life yes, but basically only Jains live lives consistent with the belief in the sanctity of all life.

Not sure if you're defending the idea or just trying to clarify his position? Either way, it's completely irrational to believe that an unconscious, undeveloped fetus has more of a right to life than some other animals that are fully sentient and can have the intelligence of 3-4 year old human babies, which of course is the position that is held by these people. You don't see these people protesting the fact that we kill billions of these intelligent animals every year to inefficiently feed human beings. It's just anthropocentric nonsense and arbitrary judgments without any internal consistency.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)

There is no intrinsic right to life. It's just a notion in your head. No one is banging on the doors of non-existence to get a piece of pie in the shithole of a world we live in. It's a human invention; we confer a right to life to those we choose, and we arbitrarily decide whether others should live or die on a daily basis based on whatever crimes we believe they have committed (sometimes just being born a certain way is the crime, yes, like being gay, which isn't a choice). The only people who truly believe in the sanctity of life and who live in alignment with this value are deeply religious and end up living like the Jains do. We've probably never met such a person in real life.

Yes the right to life is a human invention so are lot of other things like money, governments, and math. You wouldn't call those things non-existent. You live in Canada so you should know that we don't have the death penalty, and so when someone commits a crime a judge can't arbitrarily decide if they should live or die. .

I guess I should mention something important about me: I don't view myself as "a Canadian" and I don't argue from a "Canadian perspective". I argue things globally. Diogenes of Sinope said, “I am a citizen of the world”. Socrates as well. I cannot view things from a different perspective than this. So when I say we make arbitrary judgments about whether people should live or die, I'm talking about people from everywhere, whether the problem affects me or not. I'm talking about people who, in speech, uphold your view that human life is sacred (quite narrow-mindedly, for those reasons I gave to Drone) and that we all have a right to it, but who when it's convenient to them they will act against this belief. Pro lifers are completely ridiculous and they give more of a shit about you when you don't exist than when you do. That's a goddamn fact. They'll fight for you to exist and then they'll proceed to fight against your basic rights like doing what you want to do with your body and being able to marry someone of the same sex.

In your example you can't compare math to money and governments. Math is a universal language and it's highly debatable whether it was invented or discovered. There's no consensus on this and on its definition even. Secondly and most importantly, you're clearly straw maning me: you make it seem as though my argument is that something like a government (a body of people) and an invisible language are non-existent. Clearly these things exist and there is no relationship between them and the non-existence of the not-yet-formed fetus that you believe we should be obligated towards. By saying this non-existent subject has a right, you're pretending like you have its interest at heart and it's clearly bullshit since there's no one there to have interests. There is a way to get around the non-identity problem though, and that is by acknowledging that even though there is no one there who exists yet, it's a "would-be person', and this person will have a welfare. As soon as we acknowledge the future welfare of a child, we can argue about and make moral decisions based on the environment that this person will end up being in. For example, we can easily agree that choosing to have a child in a concentration camp riddled with diseases and famine and where early death is certain is unethical if we are given the choice to abort.

So there is an entirely secular judicial body that believes in the right to life not just some Jains. Your making a No true scottsman logical fallacy

Say that to Damien Echols and see what he tells you about this judicial body's interest in you and your life. What they say and what they do are two completely different things.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (Mencken)